June 27, 2006

 

TO:     Donna Stebbins, Mayor of Great Falls

            Bill Beecher, City Commissioner

            Sandy Hinz, City Commissioner

            Diane Jovick-Kuntz, City Commissioner

            John Rosenbaum, City Commissioner

           

Re: Questions Raised at Electric City Power, Inc. Board (ECPB) Meeting Last Week Concerning the Proposed Great Falls Coal Plant which they requested be presented to you

 

Dear Commissioners:

 

INTRODUCTION.

GF Taxpayers are at substantial risk to make up short falls and cost overruns resulting from the proposed Great Falls Coal Plant. The City would even like the PSC to make it the default supplier for its citizens. If this is done and PSC and Consumer Council oversight and protection is eliminated thereby, then no matter how much the proposed coal plant would cost, the City and SME would have a captive audience to pay for the plant’s development, even if there are better, cheaper, cleaner alternatives.

 

This letter is an attempt to ferret out the deals that are being cut so the public will know the true economic costs they will be expected to pay if the proposed Great Falls Coal Plant is built. It is also an attempt to determine to what extent the Citizens of Great Falls have a meaningful opportunity to participate in determining their energy future.

 

When I raised the questions in this letter at last week’s meeting of the ECPB, the Board told me that they would not respond to my questions, nor would they listen to what I had to say, even though they had just called for questions and comments from the public. This is in direct conflict with the By-laws you have established for them (see Section 3.07 and 3.08 of the By-Laws) and contrary to the meeting advertisement in yesterday’s GF Tribune, which invited to public to “make comments or hear more about the city’s electric supply efforts by attending the next Electric City Power, Inc. meeting.” They suggested that I direct my concerns to you.

 

ECPB, the city manager and others involved in this proposed coal fired plant for Great Falls remind me of tired horses making deliveries on the cobbled streets of old. They usually wore blinders so they could plod on without being distracted by what was going on around them.

 

 

SUMMARY OF QUESTIONS

 

The questions raised in this letter can be summarized as follows:

 

1. It appears that the City and/or SME, have entered into contracts to provide power to prove to their investors that there is a market for their power. What is the nature of these contracts?. For instance, will the City have to meet the conditions of such contracts if the costs of power production by the coal plant exceeds guarantees?

 

2. The City wants to become the default electric supplier for Great Falls citizens. Who will have oversight to make certain that the city provides its customers with a portfolio of power which is the cleanest and cheapest available, rather than simply providing economic support for their dirty coal plant project?

 

3. Another difficulty is the membership of the Electric City Power Board (ECPB). Since they were appointed, it seems to work in only an advisory capacity. Currently, its members seem to support strongly the coal fire power plant. Alternate points of view do not seem to be discussed meaningfully by this organization. Why is the membership of the ECPB not elected? Why have only persons who support the proposed coal fire power plant been made members? Why can Board members only be removed by a vote of a super majority of the City Commission?

 

4. Who is responsible to make certain that the taxpayers of Great Falls do not get stuck paying for cost overruns and short falls resulting from the coal plant? Does the City Commission have authority, or power, to provide for additional funds in case of production cost overruns? In this case what are SME responsibilities? What happens if the latter goes bankrupt?

 

DISCUSSION

 

1. City Manager Lawton stated at last week’s ECPB meeting that purchasers of the power to be produced by the proposed GF coal plant are waiting in line to sign contracts.

 

Who are these purchasers? What contracts are being offered to them for the purchase of power? Will the city be guaranteeing contractees that power for a fixed price over a period of time?

 

Please provide me with copies of all contracts proposed whether entered into or not by the city related to the proposed GF coal fire power plant (or make them available to me for my copying if you would prefer). If you wish payment for copying charges, please advise me of the cost prior to copying. Consider this a continuing obligation. I recommend that a special posting on the City’s web site be made and regularly updated to make this information available to the public.

 

At the ECPB meeting, the City manager refused to provide me with this information stating that there was a “right of privacy” that he wished to protect with those negotiating with the city. What is his legal basis for this? Are these contractees paying his salary or are you? Are you reviewing these power contacts prior to their being signed? Will they be open to public comment prior to signing?

 

2. I asked Manager Lawton why the ECPB was not elected by the public and was comprised only of members who supported the proposed GF Coal Plant. He said that no other people from groups I am associated with, applied. This is not true. Was Manager Lawton just mistaken or was he intentionally wishing to mislead the public?

 

ECPB would be vastly improved if it had members with experience and knowledge of alternate, renewable energy resources. If the city were to develop conservation programs and support alternate energy alternatives for our citizens, this community would be looking at a much brighter economic future than the one which will result from a dirty coal plant based on yesterday’s technology.

 

It is foolish, dangerous, and economically irresponsible to establish a citizen’s advisory board made up with opinions that are all the same as the city manager’s on issues of this importance. It is also foolish, dangerous, and economically irresponsible to limit your power to control this Board by requiring a super majority vote of you to remove ECPB members. Are there any other city advisory boards requiring a super majority of the City Commission to change the make up of the Board? Why was this done?

 

3. Is there a reason why the power board and you, the City Commission, have refused to listen meaningfully to the public who are against the building of the coal plant? In order to foster universally informed public support and trust, the power board and the City Commission must listen to the public and encourage input of opinions which are against the building of the coal plant.

·       Specifically, through what forum(s) can the public provide input, present its questions and communicate its concerns about the proposed coal plant and other energy issues?

·       How do you plan to show the public that it is being heard, that its concerns are being considered, and that its interests are being served?

4. Is there a reason why the public is being kept in the dark about the particulars of the proposed coal plant?

 

I request that the City keep its books, contracts and plans on the proposed coal plant open to public review and criticism. City taxpayers must pay for city mistakes. Open and frank discussions of the true economic viability of the proposed coal fire power plant prior to the city committing its taxpayers to the economic risks of this plant, and then the opportunity of the public to decide, is a better approach than wearing blinders and pressing forward.

 

Respectfully yours,

 

 

 

 

Stuart Lewin

 

cc: John Lawton, City Manager, MT PSC, and Great Falls Tribune